Barely Significant

Excerpts

514,629 sentences

highly significantp <0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The fitted model, for which a difficulty level of “none” was set as the reference group, was highly significant ( χ 2 =45.3, p <0.001), and the results showed that (1) compared with knowledge pattern I, all the other patterns predicted less difficulty sleeping, which was significant for the very difficult group ( p =0.017) and nonsignificant for somewhat difficult; (2) compared with a deficient level of slee
highly significantp ≤ 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
2 , the serum pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNF-α and IL-6) in the Rotavirus- group showed a highly significant increase ( p ≤ 0.001) compared to the control group, but in the combination group ( L. delbrueckii subsp.
highly significantP <0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
MAD (malondealdehyde) Statistical analysis on the profile of malondialdehyde (MDA) in control and test groups revealed that in the low dose-treated test group significant ( P <0.01) increase following 25 days of exposure and highly significant ( P <0.001) increase at 45 days exposure are evident, but in high dose-treated group, significant increase after 25 ( P <0.001) and 45 days ( P <0.001) are evident ( Figure 7 ).
highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
borderline significantp = 0.081.6× alphagold
The difference in risk of relapse between the G2I-1 and G2I-2 tumors was borderline significant (Odd ratio: 0.16 [0.2-1.2] p = 0.08) whereas that between the G2I-2 and G2I-3 tumors was highly significant (odd ratio: 8.5 [3.2-22.6] p < 0.001) in univariate analysis.
highly significantp < .0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Our tabulated prediction accuracy (averaged over 39 subjects completing the experiment) over the full stimulus set (see Table 1 ) was highly significant for both valence (p < .001; signed rank; α = .05; h 0 : μ = .5) and arousal (p < .001; signed rank; α = .05; h 0 : μ = .5).
highly significantP <0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Analysis of the pooled data from the 24 days when the odour from three pigs was tested showed that there was a highly significant ( P <0.001) doubling in the catch of females from 2.3 (0.51±0.069) to 4.8 (0.76 0.081) per day whereas there was no significant effect for males, i.e., 2.9 (0.59±0.076) per day with pig odour vs. 2.6 (0.55±0.089) without odour.